The Chilcot report

[Realist Guy In The Room]

I know its hard for people to accept but there is the possibility that Blair did actually think he was doing the right thing.

[leicsmac]

I know its hard for people to accept but there is the possibility that Blair did actually think he was doing the right thing.

I have no doubt that he did. Various atrocities in history weren't caused by leaders because they liked the idea of killing for its own sake, but because they thought the deaths of innocent people would serve some higher purpose of their own.

The Greater Good and all that.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

I know its hard for people to accept but there is the possibility that Blair did actually think he was doing the right thing.

It was quite interesting to see Cameron being indirectly one of his most staunch defenders in the Commons yesterday. It perhaps points to his own knowledge of the complexities of such matters.

I have no doubt Blair thought he was doing the right thing, he couldn't have been so convincing in his arguments both before and after had he not felt this - but this also points to where his weakness probably lay, because when you truly believe a position you get blinkered, you search for things that support your argument and too easily dismiss things that don't (and it's becoming clear there were plenty around him that were willing to talk up the prospect of going to war).

Part of me wonders whether the whole situation is essentially a house of cards and that maybe in the coming weeks and months someone will break out and start pointing fingers? That said, there was no sign of that yesterday.

One things for sure - the real and clear instigator of all this, one George W Bush, seems to be getting a far too easy ride.

[Nick]

It was quite interesting to see Cameron being indirectly one of his most staunch defenders in the Commons yesterday. It perhaps points to his own knowledge of the complexities of such matters.

I have no doubt Blair thought he was doing the right thing, he couldn't have been so convincing in his arguments both before and after had he not felt this - but this also points to where his weakness probably lay, because when you truly believe a position you get blinkered, you search for things that support your argument and too easily dismiss things that don't (and it's becoming clear there were plenty around him that were willing to talk up the prospect of going to war).

Part of me wonders whether the whole situation is essentially a house of cards and that maybe in the coming weeks and months someone will break out and start pointing fingers? That said, there was no sign of that yesterday.

One things for sure - the real and clear instigator of all this, one George W Bush, seems to be getting a far too easy ride.

 

 

I have no doubt he thought he was doing the right thing either - a significant part of his autobiography is dedicated to this issue and its extremely interesting.

[leicsmac]

I think Mr Pratchett had it spot on (again) about such matters.

"I tell you, commander, it's true that some of the most terrible things in the world are done by people who think, genuinely think, that they're doing it for the best, especially if there is some god involved."

[Alf Bentley]

I know its hard for people to accept but there is the possibility that Blair did actually think he was doing the right thing.

 

 

I'm sure he did think he was doing the right thing. As a Jesuitical type, he always does. He convinces himself, as he convinces many others.

 

On what basis he thought he was doing the right thing is a more interesting question.

 

I think this article gives a convincing explanation: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/05/tony-blair-iraq-war-chilcot

 

"Blair never had to answer the question: should the UK invade Iraq? He had to answer a different one: should I support President Bush who has decided he wants to remove Saddam Hussein?" [...] He sought a third way. He persuaded Bush to go to the UN, knowing that if the invasion was backed by UN resolutions he would keep a big tent of support in place in the UK and constrain the wilder elements of the Bush administration. In persuading Bush to go to the UN he pledged UK support for military action. The third way UN route meant that Blair had no choice but to frame the argument for the invasion solely in terms of Saddam’s WMD and UN resolutions. For once, his third way was not an escape but a trap".

[The Horse's Mouth]

he's probably had to convince himself else he probably wouldn't be able to sleep at night, saying that though he doesn't look like he's slept in 10 years in recent pictures.

[Countryfox]

I know its hard for people to accept but there is the possibility that Blair did actually think he was doing the right thing.

 

Well in that case he wasn't fit for office.  I'm not sure which is worse but either way he is responsible and should be held accountable.   War criminal.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

Well in that case he wasn't fit for office. I'm not sure which is worse but either way he is responsible and should be held accountable. War criminal.

This will absolutely never happen and I wish people would drop it. He made a decision and whether you agree or disagree with it doesnt matter. He had his finger on the button and made a call.

If you prosecute on that basis, you immediately push doubt on whoever may have to make that choice in the future which is the last thing needed when faced with such a decision.

All these people calling him a liar etc need to let it go. This is yet another enquiry that shows that whilst his judgement was questionable, that's as far as this goes.

Although its quite clear that there's a section of people that will not be satisfied until Blair is in jail.

[leicsmac]

This will absolutely never happen and I wish people would drop it. He made a decision and whether you agree or disagree with it doesnt matter. He had his finger on the button and made a call.

If you prosecute on that basis, you immediately push doubt on whoever may have to make that choice in the future which is the last thing needed when faced with such a decision.

All these people calling him a liar etc need to let it go. This is yet another enquiry that shows that whilst his judgement was questionable, that's as far as this goes.

Although its quite clear that there's a section of people that will not be satisfied until Blair is in jail.

 

So who exactly IS accountable for the needless and avoidable death of thousands of innocent people, as well as servicemen of varying stripes?

 

Going to war is something a leader should always, ALWAYS have doubt about. If they don't they're a bloody sociopath.

[Strokes]

So who exactly IS accountable for the needless and avoidable death of thousands of innocent people, as well as servicemen of varying stripes?

 

Going to war is something a leader should always, ALWAYS have doubt about. If they don't they're a bloody sociopath.

Too bloody true, going to war should be the last resort and the most difficult decision ever to be made.

[ClaphamFox]

It doesn't matter how many times people say Blair is a war criminal - it will never actually make it so. No law existed at the time that made anything Blair did illegal. The International Criminal Court has already made this very clear. It's likely that laws will exist soon that make it possible to prosecute 'acts of aggression' in the future, but they does not exist yet and even when they do, they will not be retrospectively applicable.

 

When people say 'Blair is a war criminal' they're merely trying to dress up a personal opinion as a legal argument, when in reality it is nothing of the sort. It's embarassing to hear grown adults talking like 15-year-olds with a lot of righteous anger but zero understanding of how the law actually works.

[Webbo]

This will absolutely never happen and I wish people would drop it. He made a decision and whether you agree or disagree with it doesnt matter. He had his finger on the button and made a call.

If you prosecute on that basis, you immediately push doubt on whoever may have to make that choice in the future which is the last thing needed when faced with such a decision.

All these people calling him a liar etc need to let it go. This is yet another enquiry that shows that whilst his judgement was questionable, that's as far as this goes.

Although its quite clear that there's a section of people that will not be satisfied until Blair is in jail.

Abso-flippin'-lutley. I'm no fan of Blair nor Labour but he had to make a decision and made it, whether you agree with it or not he was doing his job.

[enmac]

In case anyone has, quite understandably, forgotten what a wise and principled politician looks like.....

Here's Robin Cook's resignation speech just before the Iraq invasion. This honestly still brings tears to my eyes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0f8NBlmwwE

Corbyn is standing behind Cook, don't forget.

[leicsmac]

It doesn't matter how many times people say Blair is a war criminal - it will never actually make it so. No law existed at the time that made anything Blair did illegal. The International Criminal Court has already made this very clear. It's likely that laws will exist soon that make it possible to prosecute 'acts of aggression' in the future, but they does not exist yet and even when they do, they will not be retrospectively applicable.

 

When people say 'Blair is a war criminal' they're merely trying to dress up a personal opinion as a legal argument, when in reality it is nothing of the sort. It's embarassing to hear grown adults talking like 15-year-olds with a lot of righteous anger but zero understanding of how the law actually works.

 

No disagreement on the point of law. By those statutes he committed no crime.

 

My above question regarding the culpability for thousands of innocent deaths still stands.

 

Abso-flippin'-lutley. I'm no fan of Blair nor Labour but he had to make a decision and made it, whether you agree with it or not he was doing his job.

 

As above. Where is the accountability for when things go wrong (as they so badly did)?

[ozleicester]

should be in the biggest cvnts thread

[Alf Bentley]

Corbyn is standing behind Cook, don't forget.

 

 

True, he got it right on the Iraq invasion. Indeed, I agree with quite a few of his current policies.

 

That doesn't mean that he gets everything right (e.g. effectively sitting out the EU referendum, the most important vote of our lifetime). Neither does it mean he is the best person to be leader on a personal level.

[Guest]

So who exactly IS accountable for the needless and avoidable death of thousands of innocent people, as well as servicemen of varying stripes?

 

Going to war is something a leader should always, ALWAYS have doubt about. If they don't they're a bloody sociopath.

 

I'd suggest that the soldiers must take some "blame" for their own deaths. You are aware of the reason and the consequences when you sign up. If you don't want to die or kill someone choose a different career path.

[leicsmac]

I'd suggest that the soldiers must take some "blame" for their own deaths. You are aware of the reason and the consequences when you sign up. If you don't want to die or kill someone choose a different career path.

 

That's a fair point, but in the history of these things culpability for war as a whole - as well as the consequences - tends to be concentrated at the top.

 

So where is the accountability from those who gave the orders, rather than those who obeyed them?

[Webbo]

No disagreement on the point of law. By those statutes he committed no crime.

 

My above question regarding the culpability for thousands of innocent deaths still stands.

 

 

As above. Where is the accountability for when things go wrong (as they so badly did)?

The 2005 election, which he won.

[leicsmac]

The 2005 election, which he won.

 

And everything post-2005 is irrelevant in those terms? I'm pretty sure the repercussions of the invasion have lasted rather longer than that.

 

Come on Webbo, you're smart but you're going down the wrong line here. A lot of people died - people who wanted nothing more than to get on with their lives - because people were convinced, erroneously and deceptively, that the US needed to go into Iraq again and the UK had to join them. Regardless of whether any law or statute was broken, the consequences for that action lie with the people who engaged in the deception and who gave the orders for the invasion to go ahead.

 

Someone has to answer, unless you are happy with there being no culpability at all.

[Guest]

That's a fair point, but in the history of these things culpability for war as a whole - as well as the consequences - tends to be concentrated at the top.

 

So where is the accountability from those who gave the orders, rather than those who obeyed them?

 

That's a reasonable question and I agree with your inference. I just find some of the families a bit tiresome.

The 2005 election, which he won.

 

I can see similarities between that election and the EU referandum.

[Webbo]

And everything post-2005 is irrelevant in those terms? I'm pretty sure the repercussions of the invasion have lasted rather longer than that.

 

Come on Webbo, you're smart but you're going down the wrong line here. A lot of people died - people who wanted nothing more than to get on with their lives - because people were convinced, erroneously and deceptively, that the US needed to go into Iraq again and the UK had to join them. Regardless of whether any law or statute was broken, the consequences for that action lie with the people who engaged in the deception and who gave the orders for the invasion to go ahead.

 

Someone has to answer, unless you are happy with there being no culpability at all.

We're living with the consequences, that's the repercussion. That's how it always is good or bad. 

 

It must be hard enough coping with all that pressure without the threat of prosecution hanging over you if things don't go as planned.

[ClaphamFox]

And everything post-2005 is irrelevant in those terms? I'm pretty sure the repercussions of the invasion have lasted rather longer than that.

 

Come on Webbo, you're smart but you're going down the wrong line here. A lot of people died - people who wanted nothing more than to get on with their lives - because people were convinced, erroneously and deceptively, that the US needed to go into Iraq again and the UK had to join them. Regardless of whether any law or statute was broken, the consequences for that action lie with the people who engaged in the deception and who gave the orders for the invasion to go ahead.

 

Someone has to answer, unless you are happy with there being no culpability at all.

 

How, if no crime was committed? Exactly how would you identify and punish this culpability?

 

One of the depressing things about the media response to Chilcott is how much of it focuses on Blair himself rather than the historical, political and legal context in which the war took place, and ended up being so disastrous. It's as if people aren't capable of taking in complexity and can only think in terms of individuals. Far easier to direct your moral outrage at Blair than to try to get your head around the highly complex factors that led to so many people dying needlessly. The vast majority of the media coverage has been infantile in its oversimplicity.

[Guest MattP]

I forgot just how good that Robin Cook speech was, one of the very best parliament will ever see.